Comments on: HIV Tests for Accused Rapists

By: Therese Norén

Therese Norén — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 14:53:30 +0000

Rox– no one wants to undergo very costly and unpleasant treatment and all the risks that it entails if they are not HIV positive.

Yes, but it takes months to become (detectably) HIV positive, and post-exposure prophylaxis has to be taken as soon as possible, within days (preferably hours).

By: Harshly Mellow

Harshly Mellow — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 03:12:53 +0000

[...] holding out for an actual, you know, Republican.
~~ Stingflower

at 10:12 pm~~

Jill at Feministe points to yet another article t [...]

By: gswift

gswift — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 20:57:14 +0000

# Darleen Says:

Uh. Yes we can. With a court order (search warrant).

True. I should have been more clear. My impression from the articles I’ve seen on this so far is that an arrest is all that would be required. Maybe I’m wrong here, but it’s my understanding that being arrested is itself not sufficient to compel suspects to provide DNA samples, that additional measures were needed, ie a warrant.

Is this wrong? Can we force suspects to give DNA samples once they’re under arrest? Not that I’m necessarily against this.

By: Ben Donley

Ben Donley — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:38:02 +0000

If the victim wants to be given emergency treatment for HIV exposure, that’s their thing. Health care workers do it all the time for needle sticks even if they don’t know the HIV status of the patient.

By: zuzu

zuzu — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:42:13 +0000

But DNA samples are evidentiary, unlike HIV tests.

By: Darleen

Darleen — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 15:10:57 +0000

#6 gswift

if we can’t force suspects to volunteer DNA samples

Uh. Yes we can. With a court order (search warrant).

and in CA anyone convicted and sentenced to state prison must provide a DNA sample that is thus stored in a DNA database, the law in CA recognizing DNA not much different than collecting fingerprints into a database. It is actually against the law to refuse to give up a sample and “force” can be used to extract it.

By: Mackenzie

Mackenzie — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:40:59 +0000

Slightly outside the discussion, but I’m afraid you’ll have to wait for Criminal Procedure before you get into 4th Amendment issues. They don’t generally cover it in ConLaw.

By: Bush v. Choice

Bush v. Choice — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 13:49:43 +0000

Blog for Choice!

BushvChoice and NARAL Pro-Choice America are proud to announce the launch of the Blog for Choice campaign. Blog for Choice is bringing together top pro-choice bloggers to speak out on reproductive rights and health issues. I just want to say…

By: gswift

gswift — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:33:15 +0000

I have 0 legal training, but it seems to me that if we can’t force suspects to volunteer DNA samples, it’s pretty unlikely that forced HIV testing would survive a court challenge.

I think I would demand it, no matter what the test results were.

I agree. I’d rather see the funds that would be used for testing suspects go towards treatment for the victims.

By: Darleen

Darleen — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 09:10:56 +0000

It is a tough call. It may takes months to get a rape case to trial – so I can see testing a suspect under certain circumstances — say in those cases where the suspect admits “having sex” with the victim but claims it was “consensual.”

Lauren, if the victim’s own medical insurance doesn’t cover treatment, I believe many states/counties have programs through Victim/Witness advocacy programs that will cover treatment.